Whitehouse responds to secession petitions

Apparently eight of the petitions filed on behalf of each state got enough signatures to require a response. I said before that this idea of petitioning the feds for permission to secede is pathetic for many reasons. First, as the power of the state to govern is derived from the people, the power of an institution that governs states is derived from the people, and by proxy from the states. It isn't up to any government to allow you to not be governed by it. If the people withdraw their consent the government must then dissolve. If the people of a state really want to secede, they don't petition the union for permission, they INFORM the uber government that they HAVE seceded. Nevertheless, just to show that I favor the idea of secession, and, in fact abolition, not just of the union, but of all government. I signed two of them. One from Louisiana and the one for my state.

Today I got this email from the White House. Notice that Carson doesn't even talk about the idea of secession as a possibility. He doesn't say "Well not enough of the people of your state want to secede. If you can get more than two thirds, I guess you'll have a case.", or anything like that. He talks about the Constitution as if all rights that the People have are derived from, and enumerated in it, as if it weren't the other way around, that all the powers the federal government has are enumerated in it. No, he quotes the constitution violator and mass murdering tyrant Abe Lincoln, as if to suggest that they will resort to any measures to which they are able, and preserve their power at any cost. After all, it isn't the legislators who have to pay when they declare war on someone or something, it's we.

What did you think they would say, "we'll consider it"?

 

People can go online and post their grievances to the government and someone actually reads it and responds. . . How come this never happened when Republicans were in charge?

 

Why do you have to turn everything into a republican democrat spat?

 

As universal law (natural rights and law) exists in the absence of government,
a government that systemically violates universal law may be deemed invalid...and therein affords the natural and legal right to walk away.

We are not enslaved subjects, no matter how much Big Fed progressives wish it so.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation ...."

 

There go the sheep bahaing away at each other, each cheering for his respective favorite slavemaster.

 

Joseph Stalin would be proud.

 

Amen. I would go a bit further, though, and say that any government that violates natural law, or writes legislation inconsistent with natural law, is unlawful, and shouldn't be tolerated by civilized people.

 

Under Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law means I have the right to scoop out your eyeballs if I want them.

 

Funny cause imprisoning and killing is what Bush did to the people of Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. If you can't figure out my statements, you should try visiting a book store.

 

Hobbes saw man as evil, which colored his philosophical musings on natural law.

 

I don't care what Hobbes said. He was wrong. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with scooping out my eyeballs so that you can have them?

 

No Hobbes saw man as children which is what they are. Greedy, narcissistic, and with no accountability in their natural state.

If man can do whatever it wants, then man will do whatever it wants.

 

Depends what they look like.

J/K. But your question is moot since you and I were not raised under Natural Law. we were raised out a product of evolution called the Social Contract. if you want know how people would act under natural law, you would at least have to go back pre-Viking or Greek civilizations.

And I have a feeling even Vikings would have no moral problems about taking your eyes.

 

The only way a person could ever be without accountability is for that person to be completely alone. This idea that accountability and rights come from government is idiotic. If were true that, without government, man is without accountability, governments would never form. Were all the settlers unruly, irresponsible children, who only became responsible adults once the appropriate papers were signed? Was it those same unruly, irresponsible children who wrote the DoI? How could they know to do that if they were such greedy, narcissistic, unaccountable bastards?

 

Do you do whatever you want?.... is the thought of rotting away in a government cage your ONLY barrier to murdering or raping or robbing another human being?

 

You don't know where I was raised. I'll tell you what: When you can find a sane adult who does not believe that things like theft, robbery, fraud, vandalism are moral failures, and find things like torture, rape and murder detestable. I'll agree that there is no such thing as natural law.

Do you disagree with the implication of the premise behind that quote in your signature?
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god"

If the insinuation of the quote doesn't imply the existence of absolute morality, then it carries absolutely no weight. But forget the philosophical (*)(*)(*)(*). Everyone in every society, in all of history has experience of moral obligation. I have looked to pre-Greek civilizations for information about this very topic. I don't find, in Summer or Egypt, any postmodernists or any nihilists. I find people who, while very superstitious, were very strict moralizers.

Here's some work on natural law: http://voluntarycompact.com/Natural-Law.html
That's from my website, and I only link to the work of other Voluntarists. If you like a more statist approach read John Finnis. If you prefer the work of atheists go to Daniel Dennett, or Shelly Kagan, or even Sam Harris, even though he's not a philosopher and doesn't really understand logic, he makes some good points when it comes to ethics.

 

By the way, my eyes are a beautiful, glistening sea blue. They look like jewels. Other than a permanent pink spot in the far corner of my left eye, a result of the best punch ever thrown in the history of the world, they're perfect eyes.

 

Maximatic, so the petition has been turned down, and what are you pro-secession folks going to do now? Surely you're not going to take no for an answer. Surely you're stronger than those sorry rebels back in the 1860s. I say go for it, and this time -- win. The sooner, the better.

 

The USA federal government not just encroaches on the rights of the fifty states but it extends its tentacles across the globe, encompassing more every year.. They would never let you out of their grasp, voluntarily! You thought Lincoln was vehement about preserving the union?!?! There's no chance this machine is relinquishing any of its parts!

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice the last part

People are just using their rights

 

Oh yeah, like anarchists are freedom personified. There will always be some form of Government, if not organized government then Humungus your slave master: